Talk:Langham Estate

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 30 October 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

Geoland case

Maybe a company is named the same as the area but 14 acres in down-town London is a significant area with a significant history. See WP:GEOLAND. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I fear that if the Langham Estate is not considered sufficiently notable then many other wikis covering land ownership in the centre of London (Derwent, Howard de Walden Estate, Portman Estate... etc.), others elsewhere or even other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langham entries should be considered for removal.

One case in point: the neighbouring estate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derwent_London has a similar footprint/value/impact. The Derwent wiki has been in place since 2008 and has not be challenged in this way. The same applies to the similarly aged entry for Langham's other neighbour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaftesbury_plc. It would be nice to see equitable treatment.

Langham Estate is similarly one of the largest holdings in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzrovia and the 16th largest in London -- it lies next to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Street (with some of the most valuable real estate in the UK). The Langham Estate is worth GBP billions, has been in existence for about a century and its activities have had an outsized impact on the economy and the lives of thousands in this section of London.

The article lists numerous references and they substantiate (notability: verifiable secondary sources over a sufficiently significant period of time) what has been written in the text. Its references are verifiable and come from reputable and independent sources (University College London Bartlett School of Architecture, The Independent, Financial Times, Evening Standard, Sunday Times, and a number of books... etc.). The fact that SOME of the articles might lie behind paywalls for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosguill does not mean the reference material is not there. If necessary the references can and will be revised to show hard copy reference sources -- but then what would that change? I took much time to carefully justify everything I wrote in this text.

Let me know. I am sorry you think this article unsuitable.